Rent Demand Omitted Periods for Which Additional Rent Was Sought

May 24, 2019

LVT Number: #30127

Landlord sued to evict Mitchell-Lama cooperative-shareholder tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord sought $6,181 for "rent, additional rent, miscellaneous charges and fees and costs." Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that landlord's rent demand was defective. The court agreed and ruled for tenant. The court found the rent demand defective because it set forth no indication of the period for which the charges were sought. There was no information provided to indicate the months or years for which additional rent was sought.

Landlord sued to evict Mitchell-Lama cooperative-shareholder tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord sought $6,181 for "rent, additional rent, miscellaneous charges and fees and costs." Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that landlord's rent demand was defective. The court agreed and ruled for tenant. The court found the rent demand defective because it set forth no indication of the period for which the charges were sought. There was no information provided to indicate the months or years for which additional rent was sought. Landlord could start the case again with a more specific rent demand.

Rochdale Village Inc. v. Sterling: Index No. LT-50137/19, NYLJ No. 1554116600 (Civ. Ct. Queens; 3/21/19; Guthrie, J)

Topics

More like this